Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17509
1 WP-30362-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30362 of 2024
DILEEP KUMAR TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushant Tiwari- learned Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar- learned Additional Advocate General for respondents- State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of
the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner
retired on 30.06.2016, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not
entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whether a
government employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the
benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme
Court recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors.
vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated
11.04.2023, wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts
including the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17509
2 WP-30362-2024
annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid
to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is
further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The
petitioner retired on 30.06.2016, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit
of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2016. The said aspect
has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the case of
Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition
No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an
SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the State challenging the orders
passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been
dismissed on 11-07- 2023.
4. An SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is
still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
5 . Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the
view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee
who is retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) has decided
the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval
of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17509
3 WP-30362-2024
with good behavior and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made
out his case.
7. Since, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2016 and is claiming his
outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR
Online 2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to arrears
with interest only for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ
Petition (if in the present case, it applies).
8 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears etc. as
per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue
fresh pension payment orders in favour of the petitioner, if not already
issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission
of certified copy of this order.
9. Respondents are at liberty to consider the suitability/ eligibility of
the petitioner and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
